Arms and the Law

The Florida Sheriff's Association is pitching an alternative to legalized open carry.

As an Arizonan, I find these debates rather strange. In Arizona, open carry has always been legal -- it was concealed carry that was viewed with suspicion until fairly recently (presently, it's allowed without even a permit). Open carry was a matter of -- if a person carries where everyone can see it, he's unlikely to be thinking of doing something illegal. The idea of laws that permit concealed carry, but allow the carrier to be arrested if anyone else happens to see that he's carrying, is very hard to understand from this viewpoint.

I know this is becoming an issue between Trump and Cruz, and wanted to call attention to recent Congressional Research Service memo. English law imposed some restrictions on persons who were not natural born subjects (they couldn't be appointed to the King's privy council, for instance) and so the subject was debated and defined for many centuries before the Framers drafted the provision. The memo concludes that persons born outside the US to parents who are citizens qualify as natural born citizens.

I can see that, but also an argument that the 14th Amendment defines as citizens those born within the U.S. and those naturalized into it, so that anyone not born here is naturalized (either individually or en masse by statute). On the other hand, might the 14th Amendment be seen as an addition that extended citizenship to everyone born here, so that it's not the exclusive definition of citizenship, but added on to the existing concept? I'd have to do more research than I am likely ever to have time to do before reaching a conclusion.

It's in America's First Freedom's latest issue. I found a lot of interesting things in the files.

According to Ass't US Attorney Richard Southwick,

"llegal gun traffickers buy firearms in southern states with lax restrictions, such as Georgia, for about $150 per gun. The buyers only have to show ID, undergo a quick background check and they walk out a dealer's door with their weapons.

Then they drive a few hundred miles to states with strict gun laws, such as New York, where they find eager customers willing to pay $300 or $400 per handgun, Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Southwick said. That's a mark-up of 100 percent or more."

Let's see--they show *out of State* ID and buy guns from a licensed dealer? A federal felony on both ends of the transaction. And they can buy guns at retail for $150? Gad, Georgians are so lucky with those prices, heck, they can probably get center-fire ammo for $10 a box, too...

Right here. A short presentation on "All Things Considered," but a good one, and fair.

Story and video here. While nothing in real life is 100%, the carriers (some well trained, some minimally trained) were quite effective in simulated conflict.

Hat tip to reader David McCleary....

Airplane passengers subdue and hold mental case who disrupts flight. As Glen Renolds remarks, the militia that the Framers referred to is everywhere, and capable of organizing on the spot to defend themselves and to keep order.

Mike, who has done so much (beginning with: he and David Codrea were the keys to exposing Operation Fast and Furious) is fatally ill. He is the blogger at Sipsey Street Irregulars, and inventor of the "three percenters" idea. David Codrea has posted an appeal for funds for his medical expenses, and his family. It's quite a worthy cause, in light of all that Mike has done for our cause. I'd suggest relaying the webpage to all the blogs and bulletin boards you can reach.

Right here. I don't see where they add much to anything, and in any event the first page reads "The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory effect and is not intended to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits in any matter, case, or proceeding, see United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979)."

Translation: "if you comply with this booklet, and we arrest you anyway, the Department will disavow these instructions."

Patton and Pancho, on General Patton and Pancho Villa during the Pershing Expedition into Mexico in 1916.

Chicago: policeman manages to accidentally kill a female bystander.. They also killed a 19 year old student, not by mistake.

In related news, am I the only one that thinks this shows a third-world tinpot dictator introducing a rather unimpressive general?

Well, I suppose that's not far off the mark.

Virginia governor Terry McAuliffe is proposing various forms of gun control, and has by executive order banned firearms in State offices. Va State Senator Charles W. Carrico Sr. has an interesting response: defund the governor's armed guards. "It's easy for someone who is surrounded by armed state policemen to tell someone else they can't carry a weapon to protect themselves."

The idea has lots of potential. If a public figure maintains that, oh, firearms should be limited to ten-round magazines, the legislature could ensure that his body guards are limited to those. After all, if ten rounds is enough to defend against a criminal attack, and the body guards are there to prevent criminal attack, they can set the example for the rest of us.

Actually, we might wonder why a governor needs body guards. I can't recall a single case of a governor being attacked while in office, with the exception of Huey Long eighty years ago. And there are some that argue that Long was hit by an errant shot from his body guards.

Article here. And as with anything Massad writes, well thought-out and worth reading.

NY Times story here. Of course "Campaign Against Gun Violence" means "Campaign Against Gun Owners." If NBA actually wanted to combat gun violence, it'd dissolve itself.

Very sharply cuts back, following a ruling by its Attorney General. As of February 1, it will no longer recognize concealed carry permits from: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

It will continue to recognize only those from West Virginia, Michigan, Oklahoma, Texas and Utah.

Clayton Cramer has posted an an in-depth examination of the question. For one thing, the FBI uses a strange definition of justifiable homicide, which excludes "I shot because he was attacking me with deadly force" -- which most would consider the very core of self-defense. For another, the FBI reports are gathered soon after the investigation and/or arrest, and Clayton found that including acquittals at trial doubled the numbers involved.

The new standard is becoming counterattack. What's equally interesting is that this report is from the Washington Post, via MSN.

There are bunch of trend lines merging here. Skyrocketing gun ownership and concealed carry permits, fighting back against killers, etc.. And the "ruling class" seems stuck in the past. Even this article seems reluctant to acknowledge things fully. It several times refers to successful unarmed counterattacks, never once mentioning the armed ones.

That's the group founded by John Lott, the economist who has done so much over the decades for the right to arm. Donations can be made here. On the left margin of that page you can see links to some samples of his research output....murder rates before and after gun bans, comparing murder rates and gun ownership across countries, and plenty more.

Right here. A choice bit:

"Which of the terrorist attacks cited by Obama in his speech -- which included two he had never before acknowledged as such, the Fort Hood shooting and the Chattanooga attack on a military recruiting office -- would a no-fly gun ban have prevented? None of them. None of the suspects were on the no-fly list. Farook and Malik flew last year with no problems, and Fort Hood terrorist Nidal Hasan was still in the Army. In fact, even after Russia warned the FBI about Boston Marathon bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev in 2011, the U.S. allowed him to fly to Russia and back in 2012.

In other words, the no-fly list is not just unconstitutional, it's also a red herring. Democrats want to change the subject from the failure of this administration to prevent these attacks. When government feels the need to strip Americans of their constitutional rights -- including the right to bear arms -- they should prove their case in court while allowing for full due process. That is precisely why our founders wrote the Constitution in the first place: to protect a free people against the whimsy of tyrants."

Right here.